How Investigations are Sometimes Comprimised by the Law

FBI Agents are investigating allegations of political corruption and gambling in a major metropolitan area. Several of the principles in this matter are ranking city employees. By controlling key positions in their department, they can transfer or intimidate those employees who could jeopardize their Illegal activity by cooperating with the authorities.

The central figure in this matter, soon after our Agents started looking into the gambling allegations, made a request under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts for any FDI records concerning himself. He claimed to a fellow employee that through this request and the FBI's response, he could determine whether the FBI was investigating the matter, and, if so, the extent of the investigative penetration of the gambling ring in general, and himself in particular. He boasted that he could also pick the informers and persons in contact with the FBI through these requests. Seldom are the FBI able to verify their suspicion that these statutes are used for this purpose.

In this case, they furnished the requester some collateral records while advising that all other materials responsive to the request v/ere being v/withheld on the basis of the exemption designed to protect pending investigations. By assorting tUe appropriate exemption, however, the FBI confirmed that an investigation was under way. Thereafter, subtle changes were made in the operation, including the shift of personnel from the corrupt department to other duties. The purge successfully removed cooperative employees from the unit and completely disrupted the FBI's investigation.

The confirmation of the employee's suspicion that an investigation was under way evidently prompted these counter measures to thwart the investigation.

This next example, which did not involve the FBI, is another illustration of the problem.

In October, 1980, a United States Attorney complained that a newspaper printed a front page story which was based on information obtained through the FOIA. He concluded that those involved in a murder and possible explosives violation were able to identify his informant.

Here is what he said. "All of the names in the report were deleted with the exception of my own. My informant absolutely demanded anonymity because he was and is terrified. Now, (the subjects) know exactly who the informant was.

"Another informant in this case was a Federal District Judge. The subject filed an FOIA request and determined the identity of the judge. He then called the judge and harassed him. Needless to say, the judge was shocked. I doubt that either of these two informants will ever again cooperate with us."